On Jun 4, 2008, at 3:02 PM, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
So just what is it that is "pulling" to such an extent that someone
will
do the extra work to replace a pre-installed Linux with something
Microsoft?
Games? Software Familiarity? Software Availability (AutoCAD for
example)? Ease of use of Proprietary Components (what started this
thread)? The list goes on. People are lazy and scared of change they
will always favor the popular / well known over the unknown. Even I
only have one Linux box left:
Linux darphbobo 2.4.27-2-386 #1 Tue Aug 16 15:28:25 JST 2005 i686 GNU/
Linux
16:28:11 up 227 days, 19:39, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Everything else is either a Mac or a gaming box (windows). Does the
linux machine do what I need it to? Sure, it's a server, it sits
there and it runs year in and year out with the occasional hardware
failure. Do I feel like fighting with a desktop machine to do my
browsing / email / etc? Do I feel like not being able to play the
latest games? No, so I have a windows machine for that.
Now imagine if you only had 1 PC that had to meet all your needs,
including gaming. What OS would you use? (I know someone is going to
reply to this with the example some game that runs on Linux, so let me
get it out of the way: No one cares; if it can't play all the latest
and greatest games it's meaningless for most families with kids).
On top of that I still have yet to see a really good GUI in Linux. I
think there is a lot to learn from OSX for example. Everything I see
in X still seems... archaic.
I've probably become one of "them" haven't I? ;)
~D
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
